End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.

Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct

[1] Self-regulation of the legal
profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation
when they know of a violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial
misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct
that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is
especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.

[2] A report about misconduct
is not required where it would involve violation of Rule
1.6. However, a lawyer should encourage a client to consent to disclosure
where prosecution would not substantially prejudice the client's interests.
Because confidentiality is essential to encourage lawyers and judges to seek
treatment, information received in the course of providing counseling services
in the State Bar's lawyers and judges assistance program is exempt from the
reporting requirement to the extent it would be protected under Rule
1.6 if it were a communication between lawyer and client.

[3] If a lawyer were obliged
to report every violation of the rules, the failure to report any violation
would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions
but proved to be unenforceable. This rule limits the reporting obligation to
those offenses that a self- regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to
prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the
provisions of this rule. The term "substantial" refers to the seriousness of
the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is
aware.

[4] The duty to report professional
misconduct does not apply to a lawyer retained to represent a lawyer whose professional
conduct is in question. Such a situation is governed by the rules applicable
to the client-lawyer relationship.